Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

CA3 on CIMT: Hernandez-Cruz v. Attorney General

September 04, 2014 (1 min read)

"Hernandez-Cruz argues that his Pennsylvania conviction for child endangerment does not constitute a crime involving moral turpitude (“CIMT”) because his statute of conviction “may be violated without implicating conduct that the Board . . . has defined as - inherently base, vile, or depraved.” ... We agree.  Applying the categorical approach, we conclude that the least culpable conduct criminalized under Pennsylvania’s child endangerment statute does not implicate moral turpitude. Therefore, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." - Hernandez-Cruz v. Atty. Gen., Sept. 4, 2014.  [Hats off to Jaime Jasso!]